A.C. No. 8708 - Spouses Saunders vs. Pagano-Calde

Petitioner Selso M. Manzanaris served as the Clerk of Court for the Court of First Instance of Basilan since 1963 and was responsible for the custody of the court’s records and documents.
Among these records was Criminal Case No. 299 against Geronimo Borja for malversation of public funds, which included a property bond represented by Certificate of Title No. 877.

The accused discovered, through his subordinate, that the original Certificate of Title No. 877 was missing from the Register of Deeds of Basilan.
Acting on this discovery, he ordered his subordinate to deliver the owner’s copy of the title to Geronimo Borja for the purpose of its administrative reconstitution.
A receipt was executed by Borja, which acknowledged the delivery: it stated that the certificate was received by him for the purpose of reconstituting the title in the Register of Deeds, with the understanding that it would be returned to the court thereafter.

The delivery of the certificate was carried out without any written order from the presiding judge, marking a procedural lapse.
Mrs. Trinidad M. Borja, the wife of Geronimo Borja, later petitioned the Office of the Register of Deeds for the administrative reconstitution of the title.
Although the reconstitution was successfully effected in November 1974, the reconstituted Certificate of Title No. 877 was not returned to the court.

On June 11, 1975, the building housing the Court of First Instance of Basilan, along with all its records and documents, was destroyed by fire.
In 1981, Atty. Filoteo Jo filed a motion to borrow the Original Certificate of Title No. 877, but the motion was denied based on the petitioner’s certification that the document had been destroyed in the conflagration.
A later revelation indicated that Trinidad Borja had come into possession of the reconstituted title, information which led the petitioner to recall that he had indeed delivered the title to Borja along with the corresponding receipt.

The petitioner admitted that he had removed the title from the court's custody and delivered it to Borja for the purpose of its administrative reconstitution when it was discovered that the original was missing.
He argued that his actions were motivated by a lawful and commendable desire to protect the State’s interest, given that the document, as an unreconstituted property bond, was ineffective for ensuring State security.
Despite his submission that the act was carried out in good faith, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the defense, convicting him for infidelity in the custody of documents under Article 226, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the act of removing and delivering Certificate of Title No. 877, under the circumstances described, constitutes the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents.

Is the mere physical removal of a document sufficient to impute criminality under the relevant statute?
Does the manner and purpose of the document’s removal (i.e., for administrative reconstitution) negate the criminal elements of infidelity?

Whether the absence of criminal intent (mens rea) in the petitioner’s actions exempts him from criminal liability.

Can the defense of good faith, asserting a lawful and commendable motive, be accepted to negate the qualification of infidelity?
How does the requirement of criminal intent, as expressed in the principle “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea,” apply to this case?

The proper interpretation of the law concerning acts deemed malum prohibitum versus acts comprising a criminal offense.

Is the removal of documents, when done without evil intent, inherently criminal or simply a procedural lapse without the necessary crime element?
Should the absence of an illicit purpose in the act preclude the imposition of criminal sanctions?